Also, in defense of the oliphant, whether the religions were founded upon a search for truth or a search for rupees is not necessarily reflective of what the religion has come to be. Even if Mohammed just wanted to make some extra cash so he could get a fly donkey, those who believe in it consider it their own truth. Just because the religion's leader isn't groping Cow Launch's invisible elephant doesn't mean the religion's followers aren't, and since the leaders of the major religions of the world are mostly dead now, it's really the followers who are being discussed here, anyway. The Hindu metaphor does not specify the religious leader but the religion, and let's face it, what the founder of a religion says quickly become very different from the core precepts of most religions, sometimes even during his lifetime.

Religion can be good and it can be bad, depending on the example. Like all of the wars over religion or the fact that it unifies people. To the actual topic question, in a way, they are theories. I don't see why a scientific term can't be used in to describe religion either. Science itself is a theory, a widely accepted one at that, and, in a way, also a religion. Science is there to provide answers, some answers are the same covered by religions. Religion is looked upon as the more supernatural view, but is it really? How do we know what is truth? I am apathetic, I know I am influenced in moral and religious standings because everyone around me is christian. I believe what I want, which is science.

Sean Aaron ~ "The secret is out: I'm really an American cat-girl."Q: How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?A: Two, one to hold the light bulb, the other to rotate the universe.Just Say No To Toast!

I wasn't saying that 'every' religion has a core of truth to it, nor was I saying that religion is needed to find truth, I was just explaining what the metaphor means. I don't really agree with the metaphor or religion generally, but I feel that open minded thinking of that type is better than insisting that your particular ideology has a monopoly on truth.

I also didn't say 'every' religion, I said 'every major religion'.

And "every major religion" is also wrong, for the reasons I said. But since you don't actually agree with the metaphor but merely think that it would be useful if others did agree with it, then I won't bug you about it. Besides, you're absolutely right that religious people shouldn't feel they have a monopoly on the truth. The problem though, I think, is not with respecting other religions, but with respecting the beliefs of those who leave their religion and won't subscribe any.

weirdadam wrote:

Also, in defense of the oliphant, whether the religions were founded upon a search for truth or a search for rupees is not necessarily reflective of what the religion has come to be. Even if Mohammed just wanted to make some extra cash so he could get a fly donkey, those who believe in it consider it their own truth.

That's certainly true; cynical leaders can have truly devoted followers. But if a leader pronounces that "women who lose their virginity before marriage must be killed because this is what god told me is a law for our people" and he says this because he's some sort of proto-trekkie and wants to know on his wedding night he's going where no man has gone before (i.e. motivated by lust), the people may follow it earnestly and kill unwedded mothers right and left, taking the pronouncement as their own truth. But that doesn't mean that their "own truth" is reflective of or even anywhere near the core Truth; it doesn't mean that it is actually morally wrong for women to lose their virginity outside of marriage and that it's morally right to kill them for it - let alone a moral requirement to kill them.

If a leader is making up a religion based on personal desires, chances are the religion won't turn out to reflect the Truth, since morality often requires people to overlook their own desires! And even if the followers - unlike the leader - are convinced of his words and think it's the truth, that doesn't make it so.

And that's why I said that religions as a whole aren't grasping at the core truth any more than people as a whole are with their personal moral codes. It seems to me that the metaphor suggests that religions have some sort of special closeness to that core Truth simply because they are religions, otherwise why wouldn't the metaphor talk about each individual copping a feel of that elephant, rather than talk about religions? And even then it would still be wrong because major religions can be groping in the dark just like any individual man. After all, a major religion is merely one man's moral code preserved and followed by a large number of people. A cult is merely one man's moral code preserved and followed by a small number of people. Insanity is merely one man's moral code followed by only him.

Ack, my eyes are bleeding. Science is a process. Science is a tool. Science is not a "theory". Plus, it doesn't matter if people "accept" science or not. They still benefit from the medical advances science provides. They make phone calls on the technology that science advances. They drive in cars that science developed, and they get to their destination safely thanks to further advances thanks to science.

Ack, my eyes are bleeding. Science is a process. Science is a tool. Science is not a "theory". Plus, it doesn't matter if people "accept" science or not. They still benefit from the medical advances science provides. They make phone calls on the technology that science advances. They drive in cars that science developed, and they get to their destination safely thanks to further advances thanks to science.

Oy!

Remember all of those theories you learned about in science class? Scientists are always coming up with theories. The quantum theory being the most recent well known one. It is widely accepted, but is still a theory, it could turn out to be all wrong. Like when they discovered nothing is completely continuous, even on an energy scale. Even motion apparently takes these little jumps. Think of it as stairs, there is that spot you can't stay because you fall down to the previous riser.

Also, religion also drove the advancement of technology, like astronomy as it is called now. They used to be called philosophers. science has taken over those jobs.

Sean Aaron ~ "The secret is out: I'm really an American cat-girl."Q: How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?A: Two, one to hold the light bulb, the other to rotate the universe.Just Say No To Toast!

Ack, my eyes are bleeding. Science is a process. Science is a tool. Science is not a "theory".

Remember all of those theories you learned about in science class? Scientists are always coming up with theories.

The Earth is populated by humans. Humans have thoughts. That doesn't make Earth a thought.

The field of Science is populated by scientists. Scientists come up with theories. That doesn't make Science a theory.

And as for religion and the advancement of science... I do recall a little something about astronomers being burned at the stake for daring to publish their findings, which happened to contradict the Bible and the Church's teachings.

The Church stalled scientific progress for an extremely long time by adopting the philosophy of Aristotle because it was congenial to the teachings of Christ and could be reinterpreted in that light. It took scientists and philosophers years of hard persecution by religious authorities of all flavours to contradict Aristotle and the Church and finally overthrow those incorrect teachings.

I don't see what it has to do with wit, either. It wasn't a joke but an accurate observation: Here you are making at least your third post in a thread you claim to avoid like the plague and perhaps thinking up a fourth one to say (for some reason) how witty this post was.

Here you are making at least your third post in a thread you claim to avoid like the plague ...

Now, to the topic at hand; I didn't say I was avoiding this thread like the plague. I said the only way to avoid reading silly nonsense on science and religion is to avoid reading them altogether. There is a difference.

"Religion" is man's attempt to please God or otherwise earn his favor. "Religious" people killed Jesus, for what it's worth. While some might call me "religious," I'd much prefer to call it a relationship.

To more directly answer the thread's question, I think the broad term of "religion" is an awfully large generalization to attempt to scrutinize. You're better off examining the individual core claims of each faith, as well as the teachings & actual lives of the adherents.

Here you are making at least your third post in a thread you claim to avoid like the plague ...

Look at that, Adam has a reading comprehension problem. You know, they do have remedial classes you can take to correct this problem. Besides, there is no shame in being behind the rest of your peers. What, with "No Child Left Behind" it won't matter anyways; they won't flunk you.

Now, to the topic at hand; I didn't say I was avoiding this thread like the plague. I said the only way to avoid reading silly nonsense on science and religion is to avoid reading them altogether. There is a difference. If you can't see it, let me know and I'll try ... to ... explain ... it ... to ... you ... slowly.

Thomas+Joseph wrote:

The only cure I've been able to find is to avoid these threads like the plague. LOL.

You said "these threads." That's pretty clear. "This" would be included in "these," grammatically. Either you mistyped or just were not clear -- neither being a reason to insult me. But since you're going to be a jerk about an inoffensive, harmless joke, I've reported you.